With the rise of online retailers and the corresponding decline of brick-and-mortar stores, the shopping experience frequently culminates in a package being delivered to a customer, rather than being brought home from a physical point-of-sale location. However, the recipient is not always present when the package is delivered, and thus the carrier must either bring the package back to a central warehouse for later pickup by the recipient or leave the package unattended at the delivery address. In the case of the former, this can lead to unintended delays in receipt, as the customer may not be able to travel to the central warehouse for pickup during normal business hours. In the case of the latter, unattended packages become prime candidates for theft; this is particularly problematic in urban areas, where greater traffic near the delivery address increases the number of individuals who see the unattended package.
Anecdotal evidence shows that some delivery services will go to significant lengths to hide packages from potential thieves. However, this is not the norm. Every moment spent attempting to hide a package for one customer is a moment that the carrier no longer has available to deliver packages to subsequent recipients on that day's route. Accordingly, while going to such lengths is admirable from a customer-service perspective, as such extra time accumulates throughout the day, it has the potential to result in later packages not being delivered on time, if at all. Conversely, it may require the delivery person to work overtime or to make up for lost time by driving at unsafe speeds or engaging in other traffic violations in order to meet the delivery quota for the day.
Some attempts at remedying the problem of package theft involve the permanent installation of large mailboxes or other unsightly structures. In addition to aesthetic issues, permanent installations are also problematic when there are space constraints, as these structures take up the same amount of space when in use and when not in use. Further, for high-capacity delivery locations, such as apartments, there simply may not be enough space to erect or permanently mount receptacles
Other removable theft-deterrent devices have been developed, including U.S. Pat. No. 6,155,715; however, these have drawbacks of their own. The device of the '715 patent includes a clamp that is used to affix a pouch to the edge of a door or to serve as an anchor placed behind the door. Affixing the anchor to the side or the top of the door requires that there be adequate clearance between the edge of the door and the door jamb; inadequate clearance will cause damage to the door jamb or prevent the door from being closed. Similarly, affixing the clamp to the bottom of the door requires adequate clearance between the door and the ground, as the clamp would be damaged or the door wouldn't move if the clamp were to come into contact with the ground. Use of the clamp as an anchor is equally problematic: there must be an adequate gap between the door and the jamb to accommodate the diameter of the cable and using the clamp as a behind-the-door-anchor may scratch or otherwise cause damage to the finished surface of the interior side of the door, jamb, or walls. Finally, when the clamp is affixed to the bottom of the door or is used as an anchor behind the bottom of the door, the pouch of the '715 patent lays on the ground in such a manner that a delivery person must bend over entirely to access the pouch and then must use two hands to close the pouch.
As a result, in light of the foregoing, it is clear that there is an unmet need in the art for a theft deterrent device that is removable and small enough to accommodate the demands of high-capacity residences, yet does not cause damage to the surrounding structures and maximizes ease of use by carriers and others delivering packages into the receptacle.